I have seen five different versions of this Victor Hugo film, read the book and even seen the play--so it's obvious that I love the story and have different insights than the typical viewer. Clearly of the films I have seen this is the best version for many reasons. The biggest reason is that at almost five hours, it comes closest to Hugo's vision, as "Les Misérables" is a huge and complex story--and most films skip major portions of the book in order to squeeze it into a normal format. However, with this version, the film was broken into three distinct full-length segments and most of the important elements of the film are present (even if they did change the ending and a few other portions of the story). The second reason is that although it is a black & white film, it is the most artistic of the bunch--with some of the best cinematography of any film of the era. The way the shots are framed is brilliant--beautiful, unique and lovingly recreated. It was directed and filmed by masters. Third, I liked the guy who played the lead character, Jean Valjean. Unlike the 'pretty boys' who often play this man (such as Richard Jordan, Frederic March or Liam Neeson), Hary Baur was the hulking man the character was in the book--Neeson and the rest simply didn't have the physical look of Valjean and Baur had a nice, restrained performance.
So why if it all looks so great do I only give the film a 9--after all, it is a wonderful film. The fact is that I rarely give 10s. To me a 10 must mean something--that a film is essentially perfect. This is a great film, but not perfect. Although a tiny quibble, Fantine was supposed to be missing her teeth but here it's obvious they were blacked out instead. Now I am NOT suggesting they should have knocked out her teeth, but they could have been more careful in the filming (which was otherwise perfect) to make sure it wasn't obvious they were blackened. And finally, my biggest complaint was about the relentless Inspector Javert. To me, he was THE most important and complex character in the story. Here, however, he's more of a minor annoyance and the depth of his presence was minimized. Plus, while his suicide could have been interpreted the way the film suggested, I always felt Javert killed himself not because of his failure at his job (as the film states) but because of his realization that his entire legalistic life was for nothing. Still, the movie is amazing and I suggest you see it and read the book--it's one of the best stories I've read and one that has many deep philosophical questions--questions that just aren't always present in the films.
So why if it all looks so great do I only give the film a 9--after all, it is a wonderful film. The fact is that I rarely give 10s. To me a 10 must mean something--that a film is essentially perfect. This is a great film, but not perfect. Although a tiny quibble, Fantine was supposed to be missing her teeth but here it's obvious they were blacked out instead. Now I am NOT suggesting they should have knocked out her teeth, but they could have been more careful in the filming (which was otherwise perfect) to make sure it wasn't obvious they were blackened. And finally, my biggest complaint was about the relentless Inspector Javert. To me, he was THE most important and complex character in the story. Here, however, he's more of a minor annoyance and the depth of his presence was minimized. Plus, while his suicide could have been interpreted the way the film suggested, I always felt Javert killed himself not because of his failure at his job (as the film states) but because of his realization that his entire legalistic life was for nothing. Still, the movie is amazing and I suggest you see it and read the book--it's one of the best stories I've read and one that has many deep philosophical questions--questions that just aren't always present in the films.